United States v. Mount
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7377
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Mount disappeared on release awaiting trial for felon-in-possession; eight firearms found at his home following a search warrant; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after being captured; plea agreement conditioned on government moving for an additional one-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b) if the two-level acceptance reduction was granted; district court granted the two-level reduction but denied the government’s § 3E1.1(b) motion; Mount argued the additional reduction was mandatory once the government timely notified and made the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the § 3E1.1(b) extra level mandatory when government mov es | Mount: mandatory once criteria met | United States: advisory Guidelines; court may deny | No; the court must grant if conditions are met (textual mandatory language) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Townsend, 73 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 1996) (§ 3E1.1(b) mandatory once conditions satisfied)
- United States v. Anderson, 604 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2010) (discussion of government motion timing and plea agreement context)
- United States v. Deberry, 576 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2009) (prosecutor may withhold § 3E1.1(b) motion on legitimate objectives)
- United States v. Williamson, 598 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 2010) ( Fifth Circuit view on district court discretion vs government motion)
- United States v. Stacey, 531 F.3d 565 (8th Cir. 2008) (court’s role in § 3E1.1(b) analysis; possible implications for discretion)
- United States v. Sloley, 464 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2006) (government motion prerequisite for § 3E1.1(b) adjustment)
- United States v. Rice, 184 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 1999) (§ 3E1.1(b) adjustment requires government motion)
- United States v. Velgar-Vivero, 8 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 1993) (early interpretations of acceptance adjustments)
- United States v. Zaragoza, 123 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1997) (non-discretionary calculation for offense level under obstruction)